Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

lanternbioworks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 312 posts

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#141

Post by corethree »

Someone wrote: post #100
crazygringo wrote: post #26

This is certainly an interesting idea, but there's absolutely no way for anyone to judge whether the claim on this page is bulletproof true, something plausible worth researching more, or just total nonsense. But the fact that there isn't a single link to any scientific paper or evidence whatsoever, or even a single person's name linked to the site (or source of funding or anything ), makes me assume this is just spa…

I didn’t look at that Google drive, but Google search gave me: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12369203 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caries_vaccine As a layman, I would be concerned about trying to control a bacterium called Streptococcus mutans , as that, to me, signals “this thing mutates rapidly”.

Mutations trend towards stable states. Stable states further trend towards states where fast mutation becomes disabled because it's in a "good" stable zone.

Symbiosis is the ultimate stable state.

You can get stable states in intermediate zones like hiv infections, but these zones are not as good as symbiosis. They have potential to kill off a weak population, additionally humans are actively combatting the virus. In symbiosis there's no negative for either side.

There is no evolutionary pressure to "mutate" in symbiosis. Mutations will occur in the beginning. Those will die off fast and eventually the strain will become more and more stable as the gene starts mutating towards a configuration that has slow mutations.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#142

Post by _trampeltier »

dehrmann wrote: post #61
dgrin91 wrote: post #56

The question I always have with this type of stuff is: why is it not _already_ huge. Cavities were a big thing already in 1985. If this was a miracle cure in 1985 then I do not believe that this study would have ended in 'ok that was fun, back to normal life'. This has huge commercial potential if true, so the apparently implications is that there is something blocking that commercial application. Was it FDA? Was it…

Don't want to get too conspiratorial, but dentists make their money on cavities, not cleanings.

Yes, sometimes it takes time, like in Japan the birth control pill ..

"Campaigners here joke that it took the country 30 years to approve the contraceptive or birth control pill, but just six months to approve the Viagra pill for male impotence. Both became available in 1999, but the latter came first."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-62515356

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#143

Post by bagels »

konschubert wrote: post #118
queuebert wrote: post #80

The FDA requirements for the original clinical trial were wild: "...the FDA required them to find a cohort of 300 healthy 18-30 year olds who lived alone, not near a school zone, and had fully removable teeth." I can see why this makes sense, but no wonder they failed at enrolling the cohort.

Why the "not near a school zone"?

Maybe some attempt to prevent a contagion that would rapidly spread to many households through the children?

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#144

Post by v8xi »

konschubert wrote: post #118
queuebert wrote: post #80

The FDA requirements for the original clinical trial were wild: "...the FDA required them to find a cohort of 300 healthy 18-30 year olds who lived alone, not near a school zone, and had fully removable teeth." I can see why this makes sense, but no wonder they failed at enrolling the cohort.

Why the "not near a school zone"?

That is a good question. I couldn't find a citation for the original comment, but my guess would be either that they want an unbiased cohort OR, since its a bacterial treatment, they wouldn't want to risk the spread and possibly contaminating children after the trial was done.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#145

Post by i_am_a_squirrel »

gene91 wrote: post #93
fdye wrote: post #69

So within the existing population today there exist individuals who essentially never get cavities. The hypothesis for this has been 1. they don't eat sugar, or only fibrous foods, etc. 2. They have a genetic difference that builds stronger enamel or similar. I have never heard of anyone discussing bacteria in the mouth as a possible difference. Be interested to see if there is a natural strand that some people have…

A dental hygienist (those people who do maintenance cleaning at dentist’s offices) told me that saliva quality is key to cavity and periodontal health. The ability of keep all teeth moist prevents plaque/tartar build up. I don’t know how true that is, but this at least provide an alternative hypothesis to the two that you listed.

I have a surfeit of saliva and get many cavities:(

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#147

Post by EarthLaunch »

jozvolskyef wrote: post #109

A conversation with my friend who was a dentistry student, ~2013. > [The friend, let's call her L, trying to dissuade me from drinking some fizzy drink] > J: But I won't get a cavity if the liquid doesn't touch my teeth. > L: Cavities are caused by the ensuing low ph environment, not by contact with teeth > J: Does that mean I can drink as much of it as I want as long as I rinse my mouth with water afterwards? > L, w…

> I have yet to find interdental toothbrushes whose use doesn't lead to ingesting nylon.

Isn't that all toothbrushes, or are interdentals unique? (I haven't used them.)

I always assumed that toothbrushes would shed microplastics during brushing.

Also, avoid flossers, as they usually have PFAS. I use a water flosser instead.

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#149

Post by hiAndrewQuinn »

jjallen wrote: post #131
jozvolskyef wrote: post #109

A conversation with my friend who was a dentistry student, ~2013. > [The friend, let's call her L, trying to dissuade me from drinking some fizzy drink] > J: But I won't get a cavity if the liquid doesn't touch my teeth. > L: Cavities are caused by the ensuing low ph environment, not by contact with teeth > J: Does that mean I can drink as much of it as I want as long as I rinse my mouth with water afterwards? > L, w…

Water also just dissolves the sugar and reduces the amount sitting in and on our teeth. I do this same thing and haven’t had a cavity in a very long time.

Is the rinsing needed, strictly speaking? Is there something special about spitting the water out afterwards instead of e.g. swallowing it?

Re: Gene-Engineered Mouth Bacteria

#150

Post by Karellen »

dehrmann wrote: post #61
dgrin91 wrote: post #56

The question I always have with this type of stuff is: why is it not _already_ huge. Cavities were a big thing already in 1985. If this was a miracle cure in 1985 then I do not believe that this study would have ended in 'ok that was fun, back to normal life'. This has huge commercial potential if true, so the apparently implications is that there is something blocking that commercial application. Was it FDA? Was it…

Don't want to get too conspiratorial, but dentists make their money on cavities, not cleanings.

US dentists make their money on cavities.

Some other countries have healthcare systems where the primary goal is the patient outcome, and lowering the need for treatment is considered a win. If this were a thing, you'd expect that it might have been picked up and trialled in one of those places.

Post reply on HN